Nikon is Feeding Canon its lunch....and them some

omer wrote in post #17849689
+1
Its about time we see better sensor with equal d/r to Sony
That is the main issue for me 65 af points or 200 is not really that important (for me)

As was asked on http://photo.stackexch​ange.com …-huge-number-of-af-points

• "Nowdays flagship DSLRs have huge number of AF points. For instance Nikon D800 has 51, Canon 5D Mark III has 61. What is the advantage of this? Does using 51 AF points really increases the chance that the camera finds out my intention and focuses on my real subject instead of something else next to it?"
  
• ...and the reply comes back about focus with less recompose, and better tracking as subject moves across the frame.
  
• So the next question comes, "Yes, but how of a difference does it make in practice between having say 399 focus points (in the A7R II) vs 100 (in my NEX-5R)? At what point would you say further improvement isn't noticeable in normal use...the kind of photos people take normally: landscapes, portraits, street scenes, nature, cityscapes, night photography, and so on. Does 399 vs 100 focus points make a difference for these? "
  
• ...and a reply comes back, "A large number of control points allows them to be packed densely, so that a moving target moves smoothly from one point to the next, without falling into a gap."
  

1. but if there are 151 AF points vs. 51 AF points spread over the same area, what truly is the benefit if I am not trying to track a bird flying out of my frame, but merely a running 6 year old grandchild who already covers multiple AF points at the same time (even when there are only 51 to choose from)?
   
2. and if I set all AF points active, if I had a 1:5 chance of the camera choosing properly, what 'benefit' arrives concurrant with 120:151 probability of wrong AF point selection (vs. 40:51)?
   
3. and if I have to manually select a single AF out of a cluster zone (of perhaps 10), so that there is no error in AF point auto selection by the camera, it would seem it is more time consuming and laborious (assuming 20% of the AF points in the same cluster zone) to chose from 1:30 rather than 1:10 AF points in that vicinity...what alleviates that issue?
   

^
More AF points across the frame, where they are close together is great for moving targets, because you yourself no longer needs to track the subject, like a bird, or at least you don't have to be overly careful in tracking the bird, the system will do that for you, and having AF sensors very close together allows the system to work more seamlessly for you vs having large gaps between the sensors.

I have seen this in action, you lock on a bird, and then I watch the zone take over, moving the AF points along with the bird's movement, regardless of how bad I was at keeping the bird on target on the original AF point. More is better in that regard, IMO. However for most other conditions, it is really only convenient for not having to recompose AT ALL if you had enough AF points, but that is a pretty minor thing these days I would think, with the AF points we do now have.

Wilt, I think if you like your 40D, you would love the 7D2. The 7D was good back when it was introduced in 2009, but it was outdated pretty quickly within a year or two. The 7D2 is bar none the best APS-C Canon has ever come out with, matching the low light AF of the 6D, better shadow noise than the 5D3, and the AI Servo of the 1DX (or very close to it anyways). Might be time to consider one possibly?

Seeing what they did on that, I can only imagine what they are able to do with larger sensors with a resolution around the 28-30Mpx mark. The new FF offerings should be pretty good I would think.

Thanks for the response...But I already presented my question in the context of 'not a bird, but a 6 year old who already spans multiples of AF points' (even with fewer total AF points)'

All the cameras with advanced AF and more points are not tailored to the parents/grandparents out there, but rather any kind of sporting events, most likely with pro shooters, or at least those that are sharing the images for publications.

Even my first rebel, the 350D, could keep up with my kids, so an old 9 pt AF system is sufficient all by itself, I would think. One large difference is now that ALL of the AF points are as good as any older generation camera's center AF point, which is very nice.

You can configure these AF systems so that you don't have to choose amongst all those points too, you can set it up so you only access groups of AF points, so you are able to somewhat quickly jump through them if you need to.

I would think that more focus points especially coupled with a STM lens would be a huge benefit in video. The smoother and more gradual the change, the better the final video.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17849793
All the cameras with advanced AF and more points are not tailored to the parents/grandparents out there, but rather any kind of sporting events, most likely with pro shooters, or at least those that are sharing the images for publications.

OK, thanks, so my takeaway from your comment is,

"Unless I am shooting things that are small in the frame and moving rapidly from AF point to AF point -- and zoomed in on 3-5 soccer players, they are not really 'small things in the frame' nor are they moving all that rapidly that it is hard for me to track -- more AF points is a non-benefit unless it happens to allow the AF points to cover a larger percentage of the frame's total area."

...anyone else able to offer benefit in scenarios not involving flying birds? That addresses question 1. Now onto questions 2, 3...

Not to get into a debate about whether the 7DII is the right camera or not (especially since newer cameras are continuing to come out)...there are those issues you read about on POTN about the 7DII. (Ironic then, that one of the issues is AF!)

• AF error, consistency issue
  
• bounce flash ETTL underexposure
  

gjl711 wrote in post #17849799
I would think that more focus points especially coupled with a STM lens would be a huge benefit in video. The smoother and more gradual the change, the better the final video.

Not really, since the AF points used in phase detection are not used for video, at least not in the last couple offerings from Canon. Almost the entire sensor is used as an AF system in the dual pixel implementations.

Most wedding photogs that I know shoot with fast glass. The rule is F/1.2 for one person F/2.0-2.5 for 2 or more for many of us.

More focal points THAT ACTUALLY WORK, allows you to put the focus where you need it and blow out everything else. Focus recompose has an extremely HIGH failure rate when your F/2.0 and below. Additionally servo that works in conjunction with 99 cross points in this D5 will result in effortless and accurate shallow DOF imigery with multiple focal points that pass the focus to each other. YOur not going to miss in servo with a set up like this. If it moves you should be in servo. 156 focal points and 99 cross points........problem solved

Now combine this with the ability to shoot at 12800 ISO with a high shutter speed to stop action for no flash situations and obtain images with almost no noise and you have selling point #2 for sports and wedding photographers--------especially if servo works under these conditions as i am reasonably sure its going to work with the D5

Then you factor cropability into an image at 12800 or even 25K iso and when you crop into the file it does not fall apart, has usable detail and acceptable Noise results when your into the crop and you have a major selling point #3

and ability to compose in camera with a 150+ points is huge

If all your doing is going out in decent light and shooting, its not a camera requirement for many. take your 7D's and a 100-400 and go have fun.

But people that need and have to shoot fast and accurate in low light situations, and video people that need 4000 are gonna be all over these types of updates

so many valid reasons for canon shooters to want these updates in their bodies

pull a 1Dx in at 15000+ ISO and compare it to a DS4 file.........there is no comparison...its really embarrassing actually....canon stops at 10K iso as far as im concerned

Wilt wrote in post #17849778
As was asked on http://photo.stackexch​ange.com …-huge-number-of-af-points

• "Nowdays flagship DSLRs have huge number of AF points. For instance Nikon D800 has 51, Canon 5D Mark III has 61. What is the advantage of this? Does using 51 AF points really increases the chance that the camera finds out my intention and focuses on my real subject instead of something else next to it?"
  
• ...and the reply comes back about focus with less recompose, and better tracking as subject moves across the frame.
  
• So the next question comes, "Yes, but how of a difference does it make in practice between having say 399 focus points (in the A7R II) vs 100 (in my NEX-5R)? At what point would you say further improvement isn't noticeable in normal use...the kind of photos people take normally: landscapes, portraits, street scenes, nature, cityscapes, night photography, and so on. Does 399 vs 100 focus points make a difference for these? "
  
• ...and a reply comes back, "A large number of control points allows them to be packed densely, so that a moving target moves smoothly from one point to the next, without falling into a gap."
  

To which I counter with some additional questions, "Yes, having AF points spread over a larger total area of the frame certainly is better than AF points more tightly clustered around the central area..."

1. but if there are 151 AF points vs. 51 AF points spread over the same area, what truly is the benefit if I am not trying to track a bird flying out of my frame, but merely a running 6 year old grandchild who already covers multiple AF points at the same time (even when there are only 51 to choose from)?
   
2. and if I set all AF points active, if I had a 1:5 chance of the camera choosing properly, what 'benefit' arrives concurrant with 120:151 probability of wrong AF point selection (vs. 40:51)?
   
3. and if I have to manually select a single AF out of a cluster zone (of perhaps 10), so that there is no error in AF point auto selection by the camera, it would seem it is more time consuming and laborious (assuming 20% of the AF points in the same cluster zone) to chose from 1:30 rather than 1:10 AF points in that vicinity...what alleviates that issue?
   

Since I have not upgraded bodies in a very long time, I want to better understand what some of the reasons would be to prompt an update of equipment to a newer body. AF points is one of them.

"A large number of control points allows them to be packed densely, so that a moving target moves smoothly from one point to the next, without falling into a gap."
is the essential answer to your questions. More can be better. The zoning will differ among cameras, but all will have that feature. Choosing individual AF points will be harder, but I give you a real scenario here, Pick the AF of the 5Dmk3 or 5Dc, what would you do? The 5D3 can be a lot more cumbersome for that specific purpose of single exact AF point, but there's no mistaking that it's a vastly better AF system.

Eye focus. You want as many AF points possible for smooth transitions of Eye focus.

Charlie wrote in post #17849836
"A large number of control points allows them to be packed densely, so that a moving target moves smoothly from one point to the next, without falling into a gap."
is the essential answer to your questions. More can be better. The zoning will differ among cameras, but all will have that feature. Choosing individual AF points will be harder, but I give you a real scenario here, Pick the AF of the 5Dmk3 or 5Dc, what would you do? The 5D3 can be a lot more cumbersome for that specific purpose of single exact AF point, but there's no mistaking that it's a vastly better AF system.

Eye focus. You want as many AF points possible for smooth transitions of Eye focus.

yes agreed by a lot

Facial recognition was a nice feature when the 1Dx hit the street......Nikon took the ball and ran with it. If it works its gonna be impressive

I haven't tried ITR yet on the 7D2, I might do that tonight.

http://www.canonrumors​.com …coming-in-april-2016-cr3/


lots of people are waiting for this announcement

I am not defending Canon and it's trailing Nikons sensor tech, however I would like to point out that there is a difference between ANNOUNCING a camera and RELEASING a Camera.

It has been three days since Nikon Announced the D5 and D500.

Let us not forget it took Nikon over a year to ANNOUNCE the D500 which is a competitor for the 7D2. It will be more like 18 months before it is actually out there competing with the 7D2.

Are we to expect the 1Dx2 or 5D4 to be Announced within 3 days of Nikon?

I'm not sure why Canon skipped CES, but perhaps CP+ in February?
http://www.cpplus.jp/e​n/


I never bank on anything claimed by CR, but they are claiming 1Dx2 RELEASE in April, which would mean announcement likely two months before.

I don't think the Nikon D5 is all that. My 3 year old 1DX's have the same frame rates, the same clustered focus points (although the D5 sports 153 of them although I've heard you can't use *all* 153 of them at the same time...you can use groups of them in zone mode) and not so sure I want to shoot anything at 3 million something ISO and *then* do the post work to clean up the mess. I don't shoot because I like using my index finger to click a rodent around on the desk vs. using it to click a shutter button. As far as 4k video goes. I use a 1DC (intro'd 2.5/3 years ago) that shoots HD, S35 both in a slew of speeds and compression modes and 4k without over heating till the cows come home - *with out limiting me to 3 minute snippits*. Do I think the 2mp increase is all that???

And I paid around 5900 USD for it with less than 5k clicks on a rated 400,000 click body. Essentially new.

"Ground breaking", "Smoking" as descriptors for the Nikon D5???

Not.

I vaguely remember canon and some other big electronic firms bailing on the CES a couple of years ago.